Bail for illness requires more than medical complaint where jail treatment is adequate and flight risk remains significant.

Bail on the ground of sickness or infirmity remains a matter of judicial discretion under the criminal procedure provision, assessed against the gravity of the accusation, the nature of the evidence, the severity of the punishment, the risk of absconding, the possibility of witness influence, and the nature of the alleged ailment. The Court found that the petitioners' medical conditions could be treated in jail and that no special treatment outside prison was shown to be necessary. It also accepted that the risk of flight and witness interference was real. The psychological burden relied on was held insufficient by itself to justify release, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground of sickness or infirmity, having regard to the seriousness of the charge, the likelihood of absconding, and the possibility of proper medical treatment and amenities in jail.

Analysis: The petitions raised the question whether illness alone justified release on bail. The Court held that bail under the applicable criminal procedure provision is governed by judicial discretion and that the principal considerations are the gravity of the accusation, the nature of the evidence, the severity of the punishment, the risk of flight, the possibility of influencing witnesses, and the nature of the alleged sickness or infirmity. On the medical evidence, the Court found that the ailments complained of could be treated in jail and that no special treatment outside jail was shown to be necessary. It also noted that apprehensions of absconding and witness interference were well founded, and that the psychological burden relied upon could not by itself justify release.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to bail on the ground of sickness or infirmity, and the refusal of bail was upheld.

---